Table Of ContentImperial America
American Foreign Policy Since 1898
THE HARBRACE HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES
Imperial America
American Foreign Policy
Since 1898
Lloyd C. Gardner
Rutgers University
Under the General Editorship of
John Morton Blum, Yale University
HARCOURT BRACE JOVANOVICH, INC.
New York Chicago San Francisco Atlanta
Frontispiece: 1904 Cartoon, The American
Imperial Eagle by Joseph Keppler, The Granger
Collection
©.1976 by Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication
may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or
by any means, electronic or mechanical,
including photocopy, recording, or any
information storage and retrieval system, without
permission in writing from the publisher.
ISBN: 0-15-540896-8
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 75-35326
Printed in the United States of America
Copyrights and Acknowledgments
Faber and faber ltd for a selection from "Burat
Norton" in Four Quartets by T. S. Eliot, copyright,
1943, by T. S. Eliot, copyright, 1971, by Esme
Valerie Eliot. Reprinted by permission of Faber
and Faber, Ltd.
HARCOURT BRACE JOVANOVICH, INC. for a
selection from "Burnt Norton" in Four Quartets
by T. S. Eliot, copyright, 1943, by T. S. Eliot,
copyright, 1971, by Esme Valerie Eliot. Reprinted
by permission of Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc.
Page 289 constitutes a continuation of the copyright
page.
Preface
Time present and time past
Are both perhaps present in time future,
And time future contained in time past.
If all time is eternally present
All time is unredeemable.
What might have been is an abstraction
Remaining a perpetual possibility
Only in a world of speculation.
What might have been and what has been
Point to one end, which is always present.
T. S. Eliot
"Burnt Norton"
Historians do debate the might-have-beens, sometimes with their
protagonists and sometimes with each other. And if they are con
sidering as controversial a subject as "Imperial America," the temp
tation to indulge in a running argument with the past becomes all
but irresistible. What is more important to a reader, however, is the
historian's endeavor to draw distinctions and make connections.
The most difficult of these concern relationships between descrip
tion and analysis, explanation and justification, and exposition and
interpretation.
The historian resolves these often subtle tensions by reference to
specific materials and with the aid of a general framework. But the
reader is by no means obliged to accept the result as the final word
on any subject. Indeed, if the dialogue between historian and reader
fails to encourage serious debate, both will lose.
This book focuses on the relationship between policymakers,
their ideas, and their institutions. My premise is that history is not v
a summary of statistical findings, however useful those may be as
tools. Perceptions of reality may depend as much on a special (even
mythical) view of the past as on current facts. It is the policymaker's
task to seek some rational integration of the two that will do vio
lence to neither and keep society intact. Thus a nation's leaders
may decide a given issue purely in terms of ideology, but their de
cision must be explainable in terms of practical advantage. For good
or ill, this process helps to shape what is possible in the future.
People interact with the past continuously; they are affected by
it; and their perceptions of it change. This could hardly be other
wise. History is taught in schools to make that interaction socially
useful. Revolutionary societies are usually the most adamant about
imposing limits on what is taught about the past. The old order's
history is often not only unsuitable to the present, but a dangerous
counterrevolutionary weapon. Teaching about the American Revo
lution has not been an exception, but the liberal-democratic society
that evolved from that revolution has managed better than its rivals
to keep open the possibility of coming to terms with its past, a not
unimportant accomplishment.
Finally, this book is concerned with American leaders' percep
tions of this nation's international role in the twentieth century,
the origins of their views, and the way they have grappled with
domestic social and political imperatives in an effort to make sense
out of the world and to preserve what they believe to be essential
institutions. In one sense, it is about the quest to make the world
safe for democracy, but it is also about international competition
and rivalry.
I am indebted to several friends and scholars who read the manu
script and pointed out where I was more than usually cryptic or just
plain wrong. John Morton Blum of Yale University, the General
Editor of this series, Diane Shaver Clemens of the University of
California at Berkeley, George C. Herring of the University of
Kentucky, Walter LaFeber of Cornell University, and Joan Hoff
Wilson of Sacramento State College read the original draft and made
perceptive comments, most of which I have tried to incorporate into
the final version. I would also like to thank William J. Wisneski
of Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, who kept after me to get the book
written, and three super editors, Irene Pavitt, Alexandra Roosevelt,
and Kay Reinhart Ziff, who took over from there. I alone am re
sponsible, of course, for any and all errors as well as for the inter
pretation.
LLOYD C. GARDNER
To my students at Rutgers
